WI: Luxembourg Maginot Line

Magnum · Dec 3, 2012

WI the French extended the Magniot Line north into Luxembourg (instead of west towards Sedan) and also filled the area with troops, both for manning the line itself and for advancing up north towards Liege once the Germans invaded Belgium ?

From the northern tip of Luxembourg, the line would link up with Belgian fortifications in the Liege area.

This would be in accordance with much of France's strategic planning, which envisoned:

- a primarily defensive war
- a swift advance into Belgium to counteract the expected German invasion
- have fighting take place as far away from France as possible

I don't know what exact POD would be required to keep most other changes minimal. Let's assume that the Germans somehow try to usurp power via a failed coup in Luxemburg and the whole thing snowballs from there, eventually leading to the aforementioned changes.

So, assuming the fortifications are built and the troops stationed there, how does Fall Gelb go ?

EDIT: oops, sorry, wrong forum. can someone pls move it ?

Tyr · Dec 3, 2012

French planning was about channeling the Germans into Belgium. Keep the fighting there, not in France, absolutely guarantee they would have the moral high ground and Britain would definitely join in, keep things tight and controlled.

Magnum · Dec 3, 2012

Tyr said:
French planning was about channeling the Germans into Belgium. Keep the fighting there, not in France, absolutely guarantee they would have the moral high ground and Britain would definitely join in, keep things tight and controlled.

This doesn't change anything about that planning. They are still channeling the Germans into Belgium*.

They'll still "know" the German Schwerpunkt will be at the Gembelux Gap. Now they'll have troops even closer to that point, meaning the fear that the Germans would beat them to it would somewhat go away.

*- btw, it was not just Belgium. The advance into Holland (the Breda variant) and the support of operations in Norway were both part of the plan of having fighting not occur in France propper.

von Adler · Dec 3, 2012

You will need to get the idea into the French General Staff that a large army with artillery and tanks can move through the Ardennes.

OTL, they sent 5 cavalry divisions and 3 colonial cavalry brigades into the Ardennes to screen the forces deployed at Sedan and keep a link with the flank of the 1st Army that rushed into Belgium. This was considered enough to screen against any German forces that could pass through the Ardennes.

Magnum · Dec 3, 2012

von Adler said:
You will need to get the idea into the French General Staff that a large army with artillery and tanks can move through the Ardennes.

OTL, they sent 5 cavalry divisions and 3 colonial cavalry brigades into the Ardennes to screen the forces deployed at Sedan and keep a link with the flank of the 1st Army that rushed into Belgium. This was considered enough to screen against any German forces that could pass through the Ardennes.

you don't necessarily have to. You can market the idea as 1) a quicker means of getting to the Gembleux Gap and 2) a way of avoiding damage to Sedan and the surrounding countryside

cimon · Dec 3, 2012

1) The French did not have the finances to complete the Mazinot line as per original planning.
2) what would they do with the Ardennes?
3) All the indications of foreign sources pointed invasion through the Ardennes,the French army second office(Is) had placed the main German attack in Ardennes,the indications of the famous Meshelin-syr-Mer document indicated Ardennes and Sedan,...
Even when the attack started,the Mazinot line had so many troops like it wasn't there...
4) There is a saying in the bible that describes such folly,but I don't remember the exact wording...

Dominic · Dec 3, 2012

cimon;6982848[QUOTE said:
]1) The French did not have the finances to complete the Mazinot line as per original planning.

I could be wrong on this, but didn't the Maginot line cost only a fraction of the large French military budget, and wasn't actually much of a burden? As far as I'm aware the reason it didn't extend to the coast was that it would go right through some of the main French industrial areas whereas the plan was to force the fight in Belgium, not invite it into their core. Furthermore I don't think it would even matter, the Germans proved they could break through the line relatively easily when they needed to.

Magnum · Dec 3, 2012

Instead of extending to Sedan, it would extend to northern luxembourg. The distance is actually a bit smaller, so funding shouldn't be a problem.

This could even save money if the decision to not build the weaker part all the way to the channel is made, since the line now extends up north instead of west.

An yes, this would have fighting occur even further from France's industrial areas in the NE of the country, as well as (as I have repeatedly stated) getting them closer to the point they really want to have their armoured formations be (Gembleux).

von Adler · Dec 3, 2012

Magnum said:
you don't necessarily have to. You can market the idea as 1) a quicker means of getting to the Gembleux Gap and 2) a way of avoiding damage to Sedan and the surrounding countryside

But the French general staff do not consider it possible to move large forces through the Ardennes. And it really should not be possible, but the Germans did it anyway.

If the French do think they can move through the Ardennes, they will consider the idea that the Germans can too.

Magnum · Dec 4, 2012

von Adler said:
But the French general staff do not consider it possible to move large forces through the Ardennes. And it really should not be possible, but the Germans did it anyway.

If the French do think they can move through the Ardennes, they will consider the idea that the Germans can too.

You yourself stated that they sent 5 cav divisions + 3 brigades into the Ardennes. Therefore, it's not impossible to assume they could think about sending a simmilar sized force from northern Luxembourg northwards to hold the fort long enough for the main force to arrive.

II and III armies would hold the red section of this hypothetical Maginot line, IX army would reinforce the Belgians holding their line of forts (which they would have built there instead of a bit further west) along the brown section, I army would advance to Liege and the eastern section of the Albert canal line, the Belgians would hold the western section, the BEF would head for Breda in Holland, which leaves us with the VII French army, who we can now keep in reserve and deploy as needed (as was originally the plan).

von Adler · Dec 4, 2012

The French cavalry divisions were light formations (the brigades were even lighter, no AT or artillery or tanks) and it was considered enough for recoinnasance and screening in rough terrain - they were designed for operating in rough terrtain, such as the Ardennes. And they moved INTO the forest, not THROUGH it. And they were easily swept aside by the German Panzer divisions.

The French armoured formations were tank-heavy and completely mechanised formations, and the French General Staff did not consider it possible to move such formations through the Ardennes and have any kind of unit cohesion left.

Also, moving them that close to the German border makes them vurnurable to a flanking attack, long range artillery harrasment and air attack - which could cause a massive traffic jam and entangle the divisions in the Ardennes, where they could be circumvented.

The French deployment and plan makes a lot of sense if the Germans would come like they did 1914 (which was their original plan, before Manstein's plan was accepted). Northern France and Central Belgium has the infrastructure to move the French 1st and 7th Armies and the BEF.

If Belgium remains in the allies and do not choose the neutral path, this could perhaps be possible - but the French would not move their best forces through the Ardennes regardless - unless you build a Maginot line into Luxembourg and the infrastructure behind it to move through it, which sounds like a massive overkill, considering it is all there in northern France and central Belgium.

Tizoc · Dec 4, 2012

Lovely discussion. There's one problem about extending Maginot Line into Luxemburg - that is Luxemburg not being a part of France. Luxemburg was a sovereign, independent country. And neutral. One may as well considering extending Maginot Line into Belgium.

BTW, shouldn't this be in After-1900 forum?

Emperor Constantine · Dec 4, 2012

Tizoc said:
Lovely discussion. There's one problem about extending Maginot Line into Luxemburg - that is Luxemburg not being a part of France. Luxemburg was a sovereign, independent country. And neutral. One may as well considering extending Maginot Line into Belgium.

BTW, shouldn't this be in After-1900 forum?

Well Germany invaded and occupied Luxemburg during WWI so maybe Luxemburg decides to create a defensive alliance with France after the war. That way the Maginot line could be expanded into Luxemburg without violating its sovereignty.

cimon · Dec 4, 2012

Dominic said:
cimon;6982848 I could be wrong on this said:

The 'large military budget' was producing four(4) planes per month,it had an extreme shortage of anti-tank guns and when general de Gaul attacked the back echelon of Guderian's panzercorps with his 4th 'cuirasse' rode' it was lacking a regiment of artillery and few other important...accountements . I haven't look into their budget appropriations(I know the navy was receiving a lion's share...) but those above are not examples of a healthy budget,however bad the planning was...fortifications had always been expensive.

Click to expand...

Dominic · Dec 4, 2012

cimon said:
Dominic said:

The 'large military budget' was producing four(4) planes per month,it had an extreme shortage of anti-tank guns and when general de Gaul attacked the back echelon of Guderian's panzercorps with his 4th 'cuirasse' rode' it was lacking a regiment of artillery and few other important...accountements . I haven't look into their budget appropriations(I know the navy was receiving a lion's share...) but those above are not examples of a healthy budget,however bad the planning was...fortifications had always been expensive.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was being spent well, only that it was big, and ergo capable of having a greater amount allocated at the line (which without sources I think cost roughly 3 billion francs). That it was poorly spent actually supports the idea that the Maginot line could get more funding, considering that it was useless but much lauded amongst the French.

cimon · Dec 5, 2012

Dominic said:
cimon said:

I didn't say it was being spent well, only that it was big, and ergo capable of having a greater amount allocated at the line (which without sources I think cost roughly 3 billion francs). That it was poorly spent actually supports the idea that the Maginot line could get more funding, considering that it was useless but much lauded amongst the French.

Click to expand...

Dominic,

A defence line is expensive for many and various reasons:

Let's look the most important ones;
1) a.- The line is like a home;a home to those who live in it(an army group as it was in June 1940) and therefore it should have the expences for its maintainace,and being build in one of the
wetest places of Europe its upkeep would be demanding;so you would have a great cost for repairs and maintainace annually.
b.-It must always be well stocked in ammunition,spear parts for its work-shops,ammunition,which after some time would have to be replaced.
c.-food for replaceable stocks and for every day consumption of its personnel along with a thousand different consumables(sheets blankets,cloting parts,hyigene articles,electrical and water systems working to perfection...etc) now these are expenses that burden the military budget because the line has to be manned(even with peace time composition of units) and that means keeping there all sorts of specialised people,gunners,AA and ground observers,infantry,artillery and engineer units,permanent medical personnel etc, that normally wouldn't be there otherwise,but for the defence line which(the line) could not be demobilised
unlike army units.

2) It demands(the line) the existence of support units necessary attached to it in the same area.That also demands frequent road repairs due to very heavy traffic in the North areas.

3) all that of course(apart from the second echelon support units) does not lessen the demand for troops in the rest of the country.

Now,Dominic,do you understand what that does to the country's general budget?

Dominic · Dec 5, 2012

Oh I understand all that, but all you've done is illustrate some of the principles behind defensive fortifications. As regards the specifics of the Maginot line, not just some hypothetical fortification, do you have any sources to suggest that the expenses involved in its construction were so great that any extensions of the line would be prohibitive? Every source I've ever seen puts the expense of the Maginot line at roughly 3 billion francs, over the course of around 9 years. The French military budget for the 1930's fluctuated between around 4 billion francs per year to 7 billion francs. This puts the cost of the Maginot line at a fraction of total military expenditure. While it is certainly difficult to reallocate resources from one area to another, considering that the French felt highly threatened during this time, in an absolute sense it is totally within their financial means to build, supply and man an extended Maginot line. Though this would not be a wise choice, certainly, and would consume important resources that would be better used elsewhere (manpower, weapons, supplies; the factors you listed), had the French desired they most certainly could have extended their line.

Magnum · Dec 5, 2012

IMO, it's not so much a question of extending the line, but rather building a section of it in a different place. Where the German, French and Luxembourgish borders meet, instead of continuing west, the line would stretch north, for about the same distance, if not less.